Comments on: Numerical Targets and Policy

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:35:50 +0000

I'd agree with this piece of news about weight loss pills.
A weight loss pill cannot do what you read they can and FDA tells you why.

By: Van

Van — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:19:24 +0000

As outlined above the indirect costs imposed on the community by fuel consumption argues in favor of establishing governmental policy to conserve fuel. We have security issues, caused by dependence of foreign oil, and environmental issues caused by releasing carbon tied up in fossil fuel into the atmosphere.

But a policy such as CAFE completely misses the mark, and seems only to serve as a diversion to avoid actually taking effective action.

Imposing across the board taxes only results in cost shifting and not conservation. But the real solution is right before us.

How do we conserve electricity? By establishing a price structure such that the more you use above baseline, the more you pay per unit of consumption. How do we conserve water? By establishing a price structure such that the more yuou use above baseline, the more you pay per unit of consumption.

So the solution is to establish a price structure for transportation fuel, such that the more you use above baseline, the more you pay per gallon.

How could this policy be implimented. States would issue gas cards such as a driver's license that could be swiped in the card reader at the pump or inside by the attendant. When the gas card is swiped, a display of the consumption for the last 30 days would be displayed. If the consumption was less than 60 gallons (baseline usage example) the market price would be charged. When the consumption exceeds 60 gallons in the last 30 days, a 25% surcharge per gallon is added to the cost of the purchase. Thus if the market price was $2.00 per gallon, you would pay $2.50 for all the gallons authorized by that card that exceed 60 gallons in the last 30 days.

This policy would result in users becoming aware of how much fuel they burn, and become an incentive to car pool, drive better mileage vehicles, and avoid needless trips.

The money raised could be used to fund incentives for purchasing high mileage vehicles such as hybrids.

By: Walter McManus

Walter McManus — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:19:38 +0000

Everyone is talking about “attribute” based standards. Light trucks are going to have a “footprint” based CAFE standard starting MY 2008. One good thing about basing CAFE on attributes is that it removes CAFE’s bias against full-line manufacturers. One bad thing is that it locks in the current mix of vehicles. I’m sure readers can think of more good and bad things.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:31:49 +0000

Conceptually the idea to have CAFE makes sense. The manipulation of them by the people involved is so laughable its almost criminal. My biggest issue is the classification of some cars (which are really station wagons) as trucks to "reduce the average", also saying that a flex fuel vehicle gets special credit even though a tiny percentages actually use the fuel.

The incentivees make sense because they let people buy quality vehicles such as Toyotas, but then congress simply limits the incentive so the Toyotas no longer get the best credit.

Keep the incentives for consumers. It will force GM and Ford to get these cars to the market faster. The old rules let them get away and get into more trouble with a failed strategy.

I am curious about he change to the CAFE going to a class by class basis. It would seem to me that gives no incentive to make better cars as long as they are withhin their MPG range for class.

What are your thoughts?